open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (43)

Author Topic

Doonoo Boonoo
Posted - 2008.08.24 12:03:00 - [361]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
Rubbish. People don't run missions because they have a fear of interacting with people. They run them to earn Isk.
So, you're saying that if L5 rewards were 5-6x the rewards of L4s across the board (6x the loot, 6x the salvage, 6x the bounties, rewards, bonuses and LP), mission runners would happily gather in groups, 4-5 people large, and tip-toe out in lowsec?


Max said mission runners were scared of interacting with people.

Which is a lie.

To answer your question. I don't know.

I bet you 1 billion Isk Max is talking out of his backside and makes his Isk running level 4s in Hisec.


van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
The Kadeshi
Posted - 2008.08.24 12:07:00 - [362]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: van Uber
Originally by: Le Skunk


This threatens the balance of the game. Level 4 missions should be either a) moved b) give less rewards or preferebly c) made a LOT harder.

Risk vs Reward




If the missions were to be made dynamic, as opposed to the current, incredibly predictable scenarios. They would be a lot harder (and fun too, I'd imagine).

- create random elements in every mission, such as NPC size, type and behaviour.
- make the objectives dynamic (ie let the Agent alter the objectives during a mission).
- make the difficulty dynamic in response to the number of player ships that go through the gate.
- make some missions competeable between different gangs/fleets, not necessarily that they have to pvp, just compete within a mission.
- etc, etc...


Or ou could just go PvPing, and then you'd have your very own 'dynamic mission'. Better yet, it actually drops T2 or faction loot.


True. That is my own preference too, but that does not make lvl 4 missions any more challenging in order to tweak its risk/reward (and add some fun in the progress).

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.24 12:09:00 - [363]
 

Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo


Max said mission runners were scared of interacting with people.

Which is a lie.


I said mission runners seem to be scared of interacting with people. Which isn't a lie. It's an observation.

Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo

To answer your question. I don't know.

I bet you 1 billion Isk Max is talking out of his backside and makes his Isk running level 4s in Hisec.




Why do I need to be talking out of my backside because I run missions in high sec? I've already stated that that's what I do for a living. I really want to see them nerfed, however.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.08.24 12:13:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
Max said mission runners were scared of interacting with people.
Not the whole story.
Max said mission runners don't run group missions, and tried to explain it with their being scared of interaction.
You argued counter to this claim and offered "they run to earn ISK" as an alternative explanation.

So either you think proportionally higher rewards to counter the higher numbers will help convince mission runners to run in groups, or your argument had nothing to do with what he said and you were trying to derail the discussion. So which one is it?

Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.24 12:23:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

Is it unsubstanciated? Are you denying that salvage is profitable? If it was, savlage prices would quickly go up on the market as less people took the time to salvage. The fact that salvage prices are going DOWN means it's still profitable to do so. How's that for unsubstanciated?



Actually if salvage prices are indeed going down, that means it is becoming less profitable. But I am not arguing that point at all.

What you need to consider (to make your argument of mission income being constantly boosted) is if the income generated by salvaging actually compensates the loss due to the loot nerf. (Or if you want to make an even better point, how the "boosted" high sec missions compare to the increasing ease of living in 0.0.)

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.24 12:27:00 - [366]
 

Originally by: Ogul

Actually if salvage prices are indeed going down, that means it is becoming less profitable. But I am not arguing that point at all.


Yep, it's market economics for ya. Salvage is profitable so lots of people do it. As supply increases, salvage becomes less profitable. Then less people will do it. Eventually it will balance itself out. That's the beauty of market PvP. The same should apply to mission running, but it doesn't.

Originally by: Ogul

What you need to consider (to make your argument of mission income being constantly boosted) is if the income generated by salvaging actually compensates the loss due to the loot nerf. (Or if you want to make an even better point, how the "boosted" high sec missions compare to the increasing ease of living in 0.0.)


As it is now, it more than compensates for the loot nerf (which wasn't that much of a nerf anyway). Boosted high sec missions compare very favourably to 0.0 life, if you count isk/h and safety. With the increasing ease of living in 0.0 I guess you're talking about jump-bridges and jump-freighters. Well, jump-freighters don't really do much that carriers didn't do before. Jump-bridges are spawns of the devil and should burn.

Doonoo Boonoo
Posted - 2008.08.24 13:29:00 - [367]
 

Edited by: Doonoo Boonoo on 24/08/2008 13:29:46
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
Max said mission runners were scared of interacting with people.
Not the whole story.
Max said mission runners don't run group missions, and tried to explain it with their being scared of interaction.
You argued counter to this claim and offered "they run to earn ISK" as an alternative explanation.



You're very good at not reading and trying to twist my words to suit your own meaning. Max has already admitted he percieves them to be afraid of interaction. I merely pointed out that his perceptions are wrong.

Originally by: Tippia

So either you think proportionally higher rewards to counter the higher numbers will help convince mission runners to run in groups,



Newsflash: People already group together to run lvl 5 missions in lowsec. As for 'Do I think higher rewards will bring more people into lowsec', I already told you- I don't know.

Originally by: Tippia

or your argument had nothing to do with what he said and you were trying to derail the discussion. So which one is it?



In order to have a discussion it's best that people don't present their misconceptions as facts.

Max thinking that all mission runners are afraid of interaction is like saying all pirates are griefers.


Doonoo Boonoo
Posted - 2008.08.24 13:36:00 - [368]
 

Edited by: Doonoo Boonoo on 24/08/2008 13:41:06
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo


Max said mission runners were scared of interacting with people.

Which is a lie.


I said mission runners seem to be scared of interacting with people. Which isn't a lie. It's an observation.

Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo

To answer your question. I don't know.

I bet you 1 billion Isk Max is talking out of his backside and makes his Isk running level 4s in Hisec.




Why do I need to be talking out of my backside because I run missions in high sec? I've already stated that that's what I do for a living. I really want to see them nerfed, however.



Ah. My mistake. I thought that when you said you were regularly in lowsec I assumed you were running missions there. My bad.

But I think the fact that you are giving mission runners advice on what to do in lowsec to avoid being ganked but don't run them yourself shows that the dangers of interruption and getting ganked are far greater than you claim. If it was easy as you say it is you would be running them yourself wouldn't you? You said yourself that lowsec is dead and yet you don't run misions there despite the better rewards.

So If lowsec is dead and it's easy to avoid geting ganked why aren't you in lowsec?

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.24 13:47:00 - [369]
 

Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
Ah. My mistake. I thought that when you said you were regularly in lowsec I assumed you were running missions there. My bad.

But I think the fact that you are giving mission runners advice on what to do in lowsec to avoid being ganked but don't run them yourself shows that the dangers of interruption and getting ganked are far greater than you claim. If it was easy as you say it is you would be running them yourself wouldn't you? You said yourself that lowsec is dead and yet you don't run misions there despite the better rewards.

So If lowsec is dead and it's easy to avoid geting ganked why aren't you in lowsec?



I don't run level 4's in low sec, but I do run exploration sites. Problem is, these generally suck, and it's hard to find people willing to go into low sec and run them. This is something I've just started doing. First time I was out, someone started probing me. Thing is, I knew that he was probing me because I could see his probes on my scanner. I gave the order for my guys to pull drones, and as long as he was using regular probes I knew the risk of him finding us was very small. When he started using exploration probes I knew the jig was up, and we retreated.

I give advice that I know works. The problem today is that many people don't even want to try. A big reason for this is that the rewards don't correspond to the risk taken. This needs to be fixed. Low sec needs a boost like nothing else.

The reason I want a nerf to high sec is that I see it as imbalanced that you can make tons of isk in safe space. For me, getting people to low sec is secondary in this argument. The two things are separate issues for me.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.24 13:59:00 - [370]
 

From my own observations, the majority of the mission runners I'd found around me were alts of either FW PvPers or members nulsec corps housed in poor space. OR, straight out jump clones. Mission running wasn't a profession to them, but merely a grind to make more money, quickly.

Also from my own observations (especially considering the chat I've seen in beginner corp channels), new players are being convinced that losec is evil, every player outside of hisec is a PvPer, ever gate is bubbled and every pirate has level V skills in everything and will eat you for breakfast.

Though I'm sure this is great for pirate morale, It most assuredly isn't true. Case in point, I spent over an hour yesterday (a Saturday night, started around 7pm EST, meaning still early enough to hit the late night brits, still late enough to hit the early afternoon Californians), moving a jump clone from Geminate to Aridia. Check your map if you don't know the relation to each other.

I passed two bubbles (one not being watched at all), and two gate camps. In about 20 total nulsec/losec jumps. And in one of the gate camps, the pirates just waved. If they were pirates, not sure.

Saturday evening prime time, 2+ year old player in an impairor (amarr noob frigate) that would take all of one salvo to pop. And no action what-so-ever.




Another observation I've made is that those players who ARE new and have only ever run hisec missions ARE unlikely to talk or interact with others. Rightfully so, if your more than a month old you think everyone is a scammer. But after being a mission runner with 20 other blokes, on average, in system, it was a shame none of them ever, not once, accepted an invite to one of my missions.

(My alts did invitations, too. for awhile there I thought it was just me. What, do I smell or something Laughing )




Whatever. Everybody has a different viewpoint of the game. By no means am I saying MY observations are final and fact. But from the way i've seen things and the evidence I've put together, more players seem to be using hisec to grind for cash than those who do it because they love it and don't want to do anything else. Being a professional carebear myself, who enjoys doing missions, i know I can do them in losec or hisec, don't matter.

But when any method of doing business (be you a combat nano pilot or a side-street mission runner) requires other people to take up your same practice in order to match you, it's imbalanced. Telling someone 'If you wnat to beat nano pilots, why not fly a nano yourself?" is on the same line of 'If you want to make quick isk, why not do missions yourself?"

And facts (not opinions) support the profitability of hisec missioning in comparison with other combat-oriented losec or nulsec activities. Facts such as the statistic that only 25% of nulsec systems have a sec rating lower than -0.5 (for those who are unaware, you need to be in the -0.5 to -1.0 range to get those 'great' bounties from rats). Or that only 20% of nulsec has the option for players to do missions (for pirate corporations, whom many of us are unable to work with anyway).

Facts such as the concept that in safer space, you may fly more expensive (and more efficient) ships that allow you to do more mission, more quickly. Though you can very well fly that faction-fitted CNR doing 0.0 ratting, losing it to a roaming gang sets you MUCH farther behind, isk wise, than the rare loss in hisec.

Or facts that in nulsec far mroe effort is required to accomplish the same isk per hour ratio. Either the effort of yourself (logistics, selling your loot, replacing ammo or ships), or the effort of others (alliances securing space).




Take what you will from the convo. It's not completely as one-sided as many would try to paint it. But there is evidence suggesting that missions are imbalanced, as far as pay, effort and professional dedication stand.

Doonoo Boonoo
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:06:00 - [371]
 


Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

The reason I want a nerf to high sec is that I see it as imbalanced that you can make tons of isk in safe space. For me, getting people to low sec is secondary in this argument. The two things are separate issues for me.



Agree. This thread is about lvl 4s being nerfed and not just moving them to lowsec after all. For a start I would remove T1 module drops from missions. Not sure if it should be removed from lvl 1s -3s because newer players will be able to use stuff they find but lvl 4s should just drop salvage and no BS sized modules.

I would remove the Drone missions as well because they inject minerals into the market.



Haakelen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:09:00 - [372]
 

The problem with lowsec is that 0.0 is better for making money. This is as it should be. However 0.0 is far too easy to secure and claim, and with the current state of powerblocs, it's easy enough to find a pet/*****/vassal alliance to join and go rat 75 jumps away in an area that is as safe as empire 90% of the time. The 10% can be spent in a station, POS, or cloaked.

Pure carebears aren't going to play in lowsec. They're going to go quit and do something else. If you'd like to go back to having 7,000 online at peak, that's cool, but I'm betting CCP wouldn't.

People who want to make more money and work as a team might, if it weren't pointless compared to 0.0. Add Megacyte and more Zydrine ores to lowsec, boost lowsec L4s, nerf jump bridges/POSes/Outposts/Sov, and maybe they'll come. I've lived in empire and 0.0 for extended periods of time. I've only ever gone to lowsec for a few hours to get kills or to drop cynos. There's also not enough lowsec, and valuable resources are too greatly concentrated.

CCP does not do things with elegance or grace. No offense, but it's true. If they 'boosted' lowsec and 'nerfed' highsec l4s, I'd bet a considerable amount of money that they wouldn't use any of the suggestions from the latest round of whines, and would instead do something none of you would like. Imagine the 15 minute dock/jump timers, some form of faction police, and boosted sentries.

The place where most people do their casual activity will be safe enough that they don't require too much effort. They pay CCP's paychecks. They won't do anything.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:18:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
You're very good at not reading and trying to twist my words to suit your own meaning.
And you're very good at not getting the point. Let's see the quote again:
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
The key is, level 5's are not soloable, and as most mission runners seem to have a fear of interacting with other people, here's another reason for not many running them.
To which you answered:
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo
Rubbish. People don't run missions because they have a fear of interacting with people. They run them to earn Isk.
The issue at hand is L5s, and their group requirements. Max offers an explanation for why L5s aren't being run that much: they require groups, and mission runners don't seem to like that. You counter by saying that ISK is what makes people run missions — whether they have to group up or not is irrelevant. No mention

In essence, either you're talking about something completely different, or you're offering an alternative explanation to his group requirement hypothesis. I was wondering which the case was: do you offer an anternative explanation (in which case you're implicitly arguing that more ISK would solve the problem), or are you in fact not arguing against his point at all (in which case you're just throwing in some irrelevant misdirection)? It could simply be that your truncated quote made you miss out on the point he made, and that you therefore argued against a point that was never made.
Quote:
Max has already admitted he percieves them to be afraid of interaction. I merely pointed out that his perceptions are wrong.
and you offered an alternative perception: that the ISK is what matters. Since you didn't dispute that L5s aren't being run that much, or that they require groups to run, you're saying that the reason behind this is that the pay isn't good enough.
Quote:
Newsflash: People already group together to run lvl 5 missions in lowsec. As for 'Do I think higher rewards will bring more people into lowsec', I already told you- I don't know.
If you don't know, why did you assert ISK as the motivating factor for running L5s (or any missions, for that matter)? If it is such a factor, then, surely, you would also think that more ISK would offer more motivation?
Quote:
Max thinking that all mission runners are afraid of interaction is like saying all pirates are griefers.
And saying that all mission runners are motivated by ISK is not?

Doonoo Boonoo
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:21:00 - [374]
 

Originally by: Haakelen

Pure carebears aren't going to play in lowsec. They're going to go quit and do something else. If you'd like to go back to having 7,000 online at peak, that's cool, but I'm betting CCP wouldn't.



True but I don't think there are as many pure carebears as people think. The only figures that I could find are in a Dev blog from 10 months ago.

Corporation Statistics.

I would like to see a similar Blog this year so we can compare stats and see if Eve is really becoming more carebeary.



Krollbots
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:28:00 - [375]
 

Nurf highsec lvl4 missions so it takes twice as long to earn the same ammount of ISK, this will mean twice the time spent earning the ISK it takes to go lowsec with new ships looking to get blown up.

All the ISK grinding will lead to fewer people in lowsec looking for pvp. This will make lowsec safer in the long run because there will be less people going into lowsec in the first place. Fewer pilots= fewer pirates. I mean pirates would probably get bored waiting twice as long as they do now YARRRR!!.

Halving the rewards might only make the game half as fun but it could also improve server lag. If it were too easy to earn the money for new ships pilots would be running all over lowsec in their free time getting blown up by a well fed pirate population and the game might be too fun for everyone and the server would become over populated.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:45:00 - [376]
 

Originally by: Krollbots
Nurf highsec lvl4 missions so it takes twice as long to earn the same ammount of ISK, this will mean twice the time spent earning the ISK it takes to go lowsec with new ships looking to get blown up.

All the ISK grinding will lead to fewer people in lowsec looking for pvp. This will make lowsec safer in the long run because there will be less people going into lowsec in the first place. Fewer pilots= fewer pirates. I mean pirates would probably get bored waiting twice as long as they do now YARRRR!!.

Halving the rewards might only make the game half as fun but it could also improve server lag. If it were too easy to earn the money for new ships pilots would be running all over lowsec in their free time getting blown up by a well fed pirate population and the game might be too fun for everyone and the server would become over populated.


Love the sarcasm. Too bad it lacks foundation in reality.

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:54:00 - [377]
 

Edited by: oilio on 24/08/2008 14:54:39
oops (double post)

oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.08.24 14:54:00 - [378]
 

Originally by: Ruze


Though I'm sure this is great for pirate morale, It most assuredly isn't true. Case in point, I spent over an hour yesterday (a Saturday night, started around 7pm EST, meaning still early enough to hit the late night brits, still late enough to hit the early afternoon Californians), moving a jump clone from Geminate to Aridia. Check your map if you don't know the relation to each other.

I passed two bubbles (one not being watched at all), and two gate camps. In about 20 total nulsec/losec jumps. And in one of the gate camps, the pirates just waved. If they were pirates, not sure.

Saturday evening prime time, 2+ year old player in an impairor (amarr noob frigate) that would take all of one salvo to pop. And no action what-so-ever.





But try that in a mission fit raven.

I see people on here saying "use a cruiser instead"... but how does one do a L4 missin in a cruiser?

A mission-fit raven in low sec will get (at the very least) ransomed for more than the mission paid out. Most likely, the raven will get popped and the pod will get ransomed (or popped, or both).

If you want people to take mission-fit L4-capable ships into low sec, then the low sec mission will need to pay a FORTUNE to be worth the risk.

Failing that, you'll have people losing ships at a greater rate than their income allows them to replace.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:04:00 - [379]
 

Originally by: oilio

But try that in a mission fit raven.



Through low-sec? There's a game mechanic which allows you to do this quite safely (not 100%), and it doesn't even require a scout*. A scout on top makes you extremely safe.

*and no, I'm not going to say. Find out. Imo, it's a near-exploit.

And there is no reason to go 20-odd jumps to do a mission.


Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:07:00 - [380]
 

Originally by: oilio
Originally by: Ruze


Though I'm sure this is great for pirate morale, It most assuredly isn't true. Case in point, I spent over an hour yesterday (a Saturday night, started around 7pm EST, meaning still early enough to hit the late night brits, still late enough to hit the early afternoon Californians), moving a jump clone from Geminate to Aridia. Check your map if you don't know the relation to each other.

I passed two bubbles (one not being watched at all), and two gate camps. In about 20 total nulsec/losec jumps. And in one of the gate camps, the pirates just waved. If they were pirates, not sure.

Saturday evening prime time, 2+ year old player in an impairor (amarr noob frigate) that would take all of one salvo to pop. And no action what-so-ever.





But try that in a mission fit raven.

I see people on here saying "use a cruiser instead"... but how does one do a L4 missin in a cruiser?

A mission-fit raven in low sec will get (at the very least) ransomed for more than the mission paid out. Most likely, the raven will get popped and the pod will get ransomed (or popped, or both).

If you want people to take mission-fit L4-capable ships into low sec, then the low sec mission will need to pay a FORTUNE to be worth the risk.

Failing that, you'll have people losing ships at a greater rate than their income allows them to replace.


I do level 4 missions in my Harbi. Most all of them, that is. And its a wonderful thing, because I have a cloak in one of my hi slots. Very nice.

Biggest thing is, I don't want people to take a mission fit and try to go solo in losec. I want people to want to get into a corp and go live in losec. You'll run cheaper fits than you would in hisec, but if your in a large enough island of corpmates, hopefully you'll be arranging for logistics and will not have to rely on 'only the lonely' when a pirate pops into system.

These 'wants' don't work, though, if you can't draw miners and industrialists out to losec with you. Without these guys producing stuff and selling it to you (usually at a slightly higher rate than they'd get at a trade hub), your logistics becomes a nightmare.

Which is something I'm finding out real quick. Trying to buy myself a ship way out here in Aridia. There are a couple, 15 jumps away. Flying 15 jumps to get an un-fitted harbinger into my mission hq is not a wise move, especially since almost ever jump is 0.1 and 0.3.




Back on topic ... solo? Yeah, solo gets you murderized. Considering this is an MMO, I would hope players would have some reason to LEAVE the State War Academy to join a corp. If they only reason we can think of is using the same reasoning that once was (can't make no money in hisec, might as well move to losec), then that's fair enough.

Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:09:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

As it is now, it more than compensates for the loot nerf (which wasn't that much of a nerf anyway).



Because you say so?

Drunk Driver
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:09:00 - [382]
 





NERF LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SO PEOPLE WILL FLY INTO LOW SEC TO BE GANKED!





.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:10:00 - [383]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: oilio

But try that in a mission fit raven.



Through low-sec? There's a game mechanic which allows you to do this quite safely (not 100%), and it doesn't even require a scout*. A scout on top makes you extremely safe.

*and no, I'm not going to say. Find out. Imo, it's a near-exploit.

And there is no reason to go 20-odd jumps to do a mission.




If your talking about my 20 jumps, the don't forget that i was moving that jump clone wholesale. And it was more than 20 jumps (had to cross Caldari and Amarr space in between). And, I was kinda HOPING to get gate ganked to save me a bunch of time, but the 'inevitable' never came about.

I like my missions. I'm real picky about where I live. I like working for Amarr, and I like being around the red stars. So, yeah ... move 40 or so jumps to get myself in with another agent is well worth my time.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:13:00 - [384]
 

Oh, there's also a little secret that if you get a really high quality level 3 agent, you can use a cruiser or battlecruiser and go through them so fast that you can *ALMOST* generate what a CNR can manage with high-quality level 4's.

That's the rumor, anyway. I haven't gotten that high yet (I'm at about 12-15mil per hour for level 3 missions, at the moment), but when and if I do ... ooohh, buddy ...

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.24 15:49:00 - [385]
 

Originally by: Ogul

Because you say so?


*sigh*

No, because that's the reality of the situation. If you feel you have proof of me being wrong, feel free to present them in an orderly fashion. "Because you say so?" does not constitute as a retort to my argument.

Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.24 16:01:00 - [386]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

*sigh*

No, because that's the reality of the situation. If you feel you have proof of me being wrong, feel free to present them in an orderly fashion. "Because you say so?" does not constitute as a retort to my argument.



So you can make baseless claims without providing proof but I can't?

No fair.

billkroll
Posted - 2008.08.24 16:21:00 - [387]
 

The reality is this game has a lot in common with economics. Most people equate the risk as ISK amount and the reward as being how fun the activity is. Many people say time is money. There is a finite amount of time people will want to risk or waste.

In the end the "market" will balance itself. Speaking of economics the only lasting effect to nurfing the ammout of ISK people are earning will be to the eve economy and some would argue the fun factor. Lowering the economy = higher risks.

In games like WoW people dont have to worry about risking time grinding ISK. Instead they pop up again at their spawn point, or what have you, and go right back to what they were doing. Eve could be considered riskier that WoW in that respect, but that makes it more fun to me. I would't like a game with no risks like WoW.

Raising the amout of time it takes to get new ships would ultimatly push the non-hardcore players towards other games giving me more space in my space sim. I say let them go!

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.24 16:22:00 - [388]
 

Originally by: Ogul
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

*sigh*

No, because that's the reality of the situation. If you feel you have proof of me being wrong, feel free to present them in an orderly fashion. "Because you say so?" does not constitute as a retort to my argument.



So you can make baseless claims without providing proof but I can't?

No fair.


Well, I had the fine viewpoint of being unable to play EvE for a year and a half. Before I left, there was no salvage, there was no LP store, level 4 missions more-often than not required a group to finish, and level 3 missions paid for sh*t. A mission runner really did better for himself by going to losec. Hisec was largely full of traders, those using the markets, new players, and the rare grizzled, 'I-hate-all-corporations' bitter old player who refused to leave hisec for any reason.

And I come back, and wow, there's a difference. Salvage, for one. Which, I might add, is much more valid a means of wealth in hisec for mission runners, because in losec, the longer I stay in one spot, the more at risk I am.

And the LP store! My God, I rack up so much LP doing missions, and now I can PICK what I want?!? Awesome! And fact is, I don't have a single package of Amarr Charters since coming back. I was doing level 4's for months, and rarely if ever saw a 'profitable' LP reward in the old system. Now I can optimize, and even choose the item which can be sold for the best profit.

Named loot seems less, I think. But my ability to sell the junk crap has gone up, because it seems people will buy anything now days. I think it's because they reprocess the junk for medium-quality ores. That's the word from some industry friends, at least.

Am I making more money than before? Far and above. Especially considering that I can go through level 4's without needing to split my wages between two or three people.


Proof? I don't know. Having read many of Max's posts, it's hard to remember if he provided any evidence in this particular discussion or not. There's so many of these damn topics, I often get confused on who has said what in each. Maybe it's the same for him, I ain't got a clue.

Considering I argue opposing sides in different posts, it's even worse for me. I gotta go back and lookup whether I'm pro-'please leave us alone we aren't hurting you' or pro-'all hisec players are b*tches'.

Neither group is right, and both sides are correct. And both are full of very humorous comments and commentators who are either complete morons, are incredibly witty and sarcastic individuals. That's the problem with text. You can't always *tell*.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.24 16:37:00 - [389]
 

Originally by: Ogul


So you can make baseless claims without providing proof but I can't?

No fair.


Perhaps if you stopped trying to be clever for a second and actually became clever you might find the proof you require.

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:34:00 - [390]
 

Quote:


But try that in a mission fit raven.

I see people on here saying "use a cruiser instead"... but how does one do a L4 missin in a cruiser?

A mission-fit raven in low sec will get (at the very least) ransomed for more than the mission paid out. Most likely, the raven will get popped and the pod will get ransomed (or popped, or both).

If you want people to take mission-fit L4-capable ships into low sec, then the low sec mission will need to pay a FORTUNE to be worth the risk.



No, it wouldn't. You don't need a pimped deadspace fit to run missions, there are a number of precautions you can take to reduce/eliminate the chances of getting scanned out, YOU WERE FLYING AFK IF THEY MANAGED TO GET YOUR POD IN LOWSEC.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (43)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only